Поиск

Рекомендуем ознакомиться

Главная > Реферат >Остальные работы

Сохрани ссылку на реферат в одной из сетей:

Mapp V. Ohio Essay, Research Paper

Mapp vs. Ohio

The Mapp Vs Ohio
Supreme Court Case was a turning point in our nation’s history. It
changed our legal system by forming the exclusionary rule, which in
turn changed the way prosecution of a criminal is performed. On May
23, 1957, three Cleveland police officers arrived at Dolly Mapp?s
home. They had reason to believe that paraphernalia and a fugitive of
a recent bombing had been hiding out there. The officers asked if
they could search the home without a search warrant, with the advice
of her attorney she refused. Three hours later, four more police
officers arrived to the scene. They knocked on the door but Ms. Mapp
did not respond immediately. The officers then forcibly entered the
home by knocking down the door and windows. Ms. Mapp demanded to see
a warrant; but an officer showed her a blank piece of paper that he
claimed to be a warrant. An aggravated with the situation, Ms. Mapp
took the warrant and wiped her bosom with it. The officers arrested
her an account she was ?belligerent? and ?rude?. While Ms. Mapp was
in handcuffs, the police conducted an extremely though search of the
house by breaking things and search through private drawers and desk.
They found no evidence of a fugitive and of anything bomb related,
however they did find some lewd, and lavacious reading materials that
were illegal in Ohio. Ms. Mapp was ultimately convicted in the
Supreme Court of Ohio on account of her possession of the
pornography. The search was illegal according to a previous ruling in
Wolf vs. Colorado; but Ms. Mapp appealed claiming it violated due
process of law. In a 5-3 vote, Wolf vs. Colorado was overturned and
the exclusionary rule of law was developed and determined to be
applicable in all courts. In the process, it has greatly effected our
legal system, and the way it is run. The justice had very important
decision to make; to either protect the rights of the accused or
convict criminals at all cost. The court concluded that protecting
innocent people?s rights is far more important than convicting
criminals.

In 1949, the
Court ruled in Wolf vs. Colorado, claming that the due process clause
of the fourteenth amendment did not incorporate the 9th and 10th
amendments. Suggesting that the due process did not protect
non-specified rights or was due process permanently defined within
the states. Therefore, according to this case, the state of Ohio was
completely justified in convicting Ms. Mapp for her possession of
pornography. Since privacy and security is not one of our basic,
listed rights, due process does not have to apply to protecting these
rights. And certainly since due process in not laid out in black and
white, Ohio could rule and construct due process in any way they saw
fit. The Supreme Court of Ohio did convict Ms. Mapp on her possession
of pornography. However, she appealed to the United States Supreme
Court in 1961, and the Court saw it necessary to review this issue
and see what Wolf needed to be overruled.

After reviewing
the case, the Court ruled in favor of Ms. Mapp and the exclusionary
rule was developed. This rule said that illegally seized evidence
could not be used to convict a person in a court of law. The Court
came about this reason for two key reasons: it did not coincide with
the fourth and fourteenth amendments of the Constitution. Justice
Clack made these ideas clear in his opinion when he said ?The ignoble
shortcut to conviction left open to the state tends to destroy the
entire system of constitutional restraints on which the liberties of
the people rest. Having once recognized that the right to privacy
embodied in the Fourth amendment is enforceable against the States,
and that the right to be secured against rude invasions of privacy by
state officers, therefore, constitutional in origin, we can no longer
permit that right to remain an empty promise. Because it is
enforceable in the same manner and to like effects as other basic
rights secured by the Due Process Clause, we can no longer permit it
to be revocable at the whim of any police officer who, in the name of
law enforcement itself, chooses to suspend its enjoyment. Our
decision, founded on reason and truth, gives to the individual no
more than that to which the Constitution guarantees him, to the
police officer no less than that to which honest law enforcement is
entitled, and to the courts, that judicial integrity so necessary in
the true administration of justice.? That was the overall opinion of
the court and the reason in which the exclusionary rule was formed
and guaranteed to the states and local governments, instead of just
Federal Courts.

This decision
has greatly affected our legal system as well. The exclusionary rule
was basically formed by giving up on one priority over the other. The
question is, weather or not it is more important to protect the
innocent from rude invasions, or to capture and convict criminals.
The Court decided it is far more important to protect the innocent.
The judges felt this would be the best way to protect people from
being deprived of their rights by the police and government. As a
result many situations have arose where a criminal has been set free
because of the exclusionary rule. Which has been a major result for
controversy.

When Justice
Harlan gave his dissenting opinion, he was fully aware of the
situation that could be arising from this decision. He knew that
criminals would be free because of this and totally disagreed with
it. He said ?In this instance, for here we are reviewing not a
determination that what the state police did was constitutionally
permissible (since the state court quite evidently assumed that it
was not), but a determination that appellant was properly found
guilty of conduct which, for present purpose, it is to be assumed the
State could constitutionally punish.? He was referring to how he felt
that it should not matter how someone gains the evidence to prosecute
a criminal; the only thing that should matter is weather the person
did it or not. If one commits a crime, they ultimately should be
punished, there should be no loot-poles around it.

I tend to agree
with the dissenting opinion on this issue. I do not see it fair for
people to get off because of laws within the system. If a person
commits a crime, they should be convicted for it, regardless of how
the evidence is found. If you make mistakes, you have to pay the
consequences. Furthermore, I think that our rights can be flexible
enough to help convict criminals. Our rights have been abridged
before; such as freedom of expression being limited in time of war,
and our right to bear arms is being significantly abridged with each
New Year. Therefore, we can be flexible to a point in our legal
system to help police matters. But that is the thing, to point. If
Mapp were overturned, then it would take the full cooperation of the
police force. What the police did in this case was completely out of
line. Being locked up as a prisoner, while strangers search your home
is totally unjustified. We would have to make sure that it would
never happen again.

That is how many
Americans, I think feel on this issue. They tend to agree with
Justice Steward and me. Feeling the need to capture the criminals,
but not to go as far as giving up our freedoms. He said, ?I express
no view as to the merits of the constitutional issue which the Court
today decides. I would, however, reverse the judgement in this
particular case, because I am persuaded that the provision of the
Ohio Revised Code, upon which the petitioner?s conviction was based,
is, in the words of Justice Harlan, not ?consistent with the rights
of privacy and security assured against state action by the
Fourteenth Amendment.? Him and the rest of our society fell the need
to convict criminals, but at the same time do not want their rights
violated as they were in this case. Maybe we should not determine how
one is convicted, but better yet, make proper adjustments in how the
police can search the home. A warrant does not always cut it, people
can get rid of the evidence before the warrant can be issued. There
has to be an adjustment made so that the police can search without a
warrant, but at the same time, not to totally abolish ones rights. It
is a very controversial issue, with a not so clear solution.

Since 1961, the
controversial case of Mapp vs. Ohio the Exclusionary has been in
tact. I do not think it will be a major issue in the upcoming
election because Americans have grown accustomed to it within the
past 39 years. However, when the Court reviews the case they will
probably head in the direction of police restraint rather than the
exclusionary rule. The rule may give too many rights too our people.
One could basically run a muck, and commit a numerous amount of
crimes; but get rid of all the evidence and then be free. There
should be a way to put these criminals in line. Much of Americans
feel the same as I do and this is what we want to see happen, and I
think Mapp will be overturned and a new system will develop.